Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

being a very passionate follower of EU theory for about two years now, I posted a link to "The lightning scarred planet Mars" into a german IT related news site's forum, and after getting downvoted heavily at first an interesting discussion with a member of the "official side" evolved.

There's basically two things I want to ask where he made me skeptical

* How can the spectrum of the sunlight be explained in relation to EU theory? From observation, you'd have to agree that the spectrum resembles black body radiation at 6000K, while an electric discharge into a gas would yield distinct spectral lines according to the gas discharged into. How does this go together?

* One of the corner stones of official comet theory is that their apparent mass is so low that they basically have consist of water snow and dirt, and can only contain a small amount of rocky material. This stands in contrast with the observations shown in the movie "The electic comet". IIRC the movie says that the comet is rock, but that because of being charged negatively, it's mass is lower? Is that correct? If that were so, it's mass would rise when nearing the sun, and we'd expect to observe that. Do we?

Yes we know, there is a lot of resistance against Electrical models in astronomy.

Sunlight spectrum.

As I understand it, the electric sun model is about the nuclear reactions taking placenear or even outside the surface of the sun.There is a good video on focus fusion.So there is likely a combination of heat radiation and electric light. The electric light gives the illusion of a very high temperature.

The black body radiation: [quote kiwi / from other thread]Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

The electric comet is mainly about the comet being electrically active. Due to its path.I think there is a lot of evidence for that. The electrochemistry is caused by the solar windinteracting with the material of the comet. The comets tail is directly related to the solar wind,and not really related to the surface temperature.

The material of the comet is certainly not just ice or snow. In fact on the surface of the comets there is almost no water at all. Only a few smallspots of water have been found.The lander crashed because of this reason. They did not expect a hard surface.The reason why scientists believe in snow-ball comets, is because they have the fixed ideaof comets coming from an Oort-cloud. This again is based on the accretion disk model, in whichthe outside material must be lighter than the inside material.

The reason why the comet is reported being made of light material, is not exactly known. My guess is that the sun causes a continuous chemical burning of the material, which makesit like coal or a light volcanic material. Looking at the comet's surface from the start to the end of the mission, I see almost no change.So it is likely that the surface is hard and strong. And does not melt in the sun, like ice.In my opinion the sun would affect its surface and even its shape dramatically. So the ice-comet model is wrong.But I don't know exactly what is going on with the mass of the comet, maybe they just assumed it to be like ice or snow and never really did any real measurements (which is a pretty common problem in science). In some thunderbolt videos the speaker states that a difference in the electric charge of the comet might also affect its apparent gravity. In this case the comet could be just a solid rock.Sadly the surface material tests failed dramatically, which makes impossible to make a final statement on the material of the comet.

He argued that both of them have pretty similar orbits, yet one of them starts to emit stuff (water?) when nearing the sun, while the other one doesn't. That's quite an ugly fact...

Also: Am I correct in stating that EU theory says that all the H+ needed for the OH- + H+ = OH2 electrochemical generation of water is supposed to come from the solar wind? ESA released data about the amount of water released by 67P, showing an increase from 50tons/day at 4 AU to almost 100000tons/day at Perihelion (1.24 AU). That's a 2000 times increase! Now, I have a really hard time believing this is only from the temperature gradient, but I've seen calculations that the H+ needed for all the water is so much that it cannot come from the solar wind alone.

So where does the H+ come from? How can such a strong increase in water emission be explained?

You are welcome to put questions here. You can put your questions in the first two forum (electric universe , planetary science),so more people can see it.This part of the forum (net talk) is usually not noticed by many people.I must warn you that many have different ideas and different education.

The discussion is harder when we reply are discussing with someone else with you in between.But thanks for trying to bring a dialogue between two different views on this subject.

yet one of them starts to emit stuff (water?) when nearing the sun, while the other one doesn't.

That is a good point, but I do not know their exact orbits. According to the EU comet-creating process depends on the vertical part of the orbit, when the horizontal plane is the plane of the planets' orbits.

If I remember correctly, Pluto also has a comet tail due to its orbit not being in the same plane.

Do you have good information on how they calculated the exact mass of the objects?I tried to find out, but I could not find a log of the accelerometers.

If the path is really no different, there might also be a difference in the material.Metal containing objects tend to become magnetic and can use the magnetism as a shield against the solar wind like Earth does.

but I've seen calculations that the H+ needed for all the water is so much that it cannot come from the solar wind alone. So where does the H+ come from? How can such a strong increase in water emission be explained?

There is still some discussion about the measurements of water. The instruments were tuned to the snow-ball model. They did not expect to find anything else there.They might have confused OH with H2O for example.But they might also have a different idea of the solar wind. Did they really measure it? Or did they justgive it a value according to their model?

From the actual observation of the failed landing it is clear that they did not expect to fall so hard ona hard surface. So it is certain that the surface is not snow.The surface was still stable after a ride near the sun, while the comet produced a coma.So again it is certain that the surface is not snow, and probably not snow from the inside.There were many particles around the comet, but they were not water or ice. They were electrically charged dust particles. (I don't know what kind of dust).

During the Rosetta mission I hoped to find actual observations that confirmedany of the theories. But the scientists seemed too focused on finding waterthat they can not even see the comet in an objective way and consider other options.I find this bias and predetermination a curse of modern science in general.

I was under the impression that the actual physical shape of a comet can impact how well it transfers/exchanges charge. Long cigar shape might indicate high resistance to charge , having been eroded for too long. There now being a balance in charge and less interaction.